Talk:Wikibooks Problems in Mathematics

From Wikibooks, the open-content textbooks collection

[edit] Suggestions

Wikibooks shouldn't be in the title so the page should be moved to something like 'Problems in Mathematics'. Also most math texts use verbs such as show or prove in each problem. If you don't want to do that, at least explain that is the goal at the top for people used to texts in that format. As it is these are just statements. Anyway just some thoughts, this is an interesting start. - Taxman (talk) 04:04, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I named the book in the manner of "Berkeley problems in mathematics." Names like "problems in mathematics" is okay, but, well, "Wikibooks problems" sounded cool to me. Hopefully, we can get more feedbacks on this. It is very easy to rename the book anyway. As for omitting verbs "prove" or "show", I thought that's a custom; when a problem is simply mathematical statements, you are supposed to give a proof. In exercises or homework, you often don't see those verbs. I suppose, words like "prove ..." get too verbose too quickly, so that's why people don't put them. Anyway, I'm going to clarify this. -- Taku (talk) 00:14, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I almost forgot. Thank you for the feedback. I think the format of the book is very intuitive and have a potential to be a great book. Needless to say, I only added problems in areas I'm familiar with. There is absolutely no reason not to have problems on, say, number theory or combinatorics, or more elementary ones. -- Taku (talk) 00:17, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

For the name it's just standard naming convention not to use Wikibooks in the title. It may or may not be in the Wikibooks:Naming policy officially, it's just convention. For the other parts I suppose it just depends on what custom you're used to. I've never used a book that follows this custom, but I've heard of it. But since all books I have used have more of a verbal statement to the problem, that is why I suggested at least an introduction at the top what the goal is. The thing about that custom is that it eliminates more concrete types of problems that many textbooks use, such as give an example of, or counterexample, etc. I suppose that's a choice of focus as well which is fine. - Taxman (talk) 16:48, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

For example, this: [1], to give an example on the top of my head. Personally, I'm very used to this format. Anyway, you raised an important point: kind of problems. When I started the book, I tried to avoid routine exercises, such as evaluate a given integral or compute the Jordan form of a given matrix. These are, in my opinion, not real problems. As they are not meant to come up with an idea (for most of the time), but apply the definitions or formulas. I also (again personally) don't like vagueness of phrases like "classify ..." or "explain why ...". How do you know if you are done or not? I guess sometimes it makes sense to use this kind of language when you give homework, say, if only to make your students think. But I think (or thought) that would be inappropriate to a book like this one. Anyway, the format of the book (including the name of the book) is entirely up to those who contribute to it, and the above is just my view. -- Taku (talk) 22:43, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Number theory problem

Prove that if (n-1)!+1 is divisible by n, then n is a prime number.